Yes, Grand Old Party, spend your actual "working" time writing up legislation that has little chance of passing the House, NO CHANCE of passing the Senate, and thus has ZERO chance of reaching the President's desk, where it would get vetoed if it did (which it NEVER will), and have about a -150% chance of overriding the veto.

This a valuable use of your time. This is why you get six-figure salaries and benefits and privileges up the ying-yang, to spend your time on shiat that you know is going nowhere.

If When it gets shot down in flames, just write-up another one, and try it again! And again! And again!Hell, try it 10, 15, 30 times!!

But remember folks, it's the teachers and the poor people that are the problem with America.

Thank you, Ryan, for killing any chance you might have had of winning the Presidency in 2016. You have almost single-handedly given the Presidency to the Democrats until at least 2020, if not 2024, and for that I again thank you. Oh, and way to learn from the arse-kicking the GOP took in November 2012, Sir.

How absolutely sick and demented do you have to be to not only think about how you can protect the "rights" of rapists, but to share that thought with other people? And to share that thought in a public way, so everyone in the country knows that you care concerned about the rights of goddamned rapists, people who are (I guess i have to say, should be) universally scorned criminals of one of the highest orders. How sick and sad to you have to be, as an elected official, to think this is an issue that you must speak out on, above all the other things that you could? ( A suggestion: speaking out AGAINST RAPE would be a good idea... just saying.)

Paul Ryan and his ilk are not fit to be elected county dog catcher, never mind to hold the offices they have been elected to. They are sick, sad, demented people who I genuinely believe to be sociopaths.

I honestly cannot wrap my brain around how anyone, anywhere, could come out with stances that are pro-rape or defend rapists in any way, shape or form. How the flying fark did this ever become the norm for the GOP?

SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. It seems a "bit" of a stretch to read that, and then come to the conclusion that Paul Ryan's intent is to "make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody."

Well this is how Jezebel analyzed it.

"Which actually means that states would have the right to ban all abortions with no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Further, in those states, if a woman was raped and wanted to have an abortion in another state, her rapist could theoretically sue her to stop the abortion, and Drum suspects that he'd probably win. "

There are few laws that could be enacted that would increase the likelihood that a woman would want an abortion. I imagine knowing her rapist could sue for custody, and therefore become a permanent part of her life, would do it!

MmmmBacon:Thank you, Ryan, for killing any chance you might have had of winning the Presidency in 2016. You have almost single-handedly given the Presidency to the Democrats until at least 2020, if not 2024, and for that I again thank you. Oh, and way to learn from the arse-kicking the GOP took in November 2012, Sir.

What a crazy bastard!

I really never understood the phrase "punchable face" until I saw Paul Ryan.

As a pretty pro-choice liberal I will say I can at least under the notion that, if life begins at conception, than the whole rape and incest exception doesn't make much sense. What's just weird to me is following through positions to logical conclusions.

Every miscarriage would seem like it could be investigated as a homicide. If this sort of law is passed, would a rapist be able to get medical records to see if his victim had an abortion? If she wound up miscarrying, could he get her thrown in jail?

It'd be awesome if life was as simple as republicans seem think it is, but holy hell, we don't live in 4,000 BCE...

Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party. That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.

quickdraw:MmmmBacon: Thank you, Ryan, for killing any chance you might have had of winning the Presidency in 2016. You have almost single-handedly given the Presidency to the Democrats until at least 2020, if not 2024, and for that I again thank you. Oh, and way to learn from the arse-kicking the GOP took in November 2012, Sir.

What a crazy bastard!

I really never understood the phrase "punchable face" until I saw Paul Ryan.

His face is quite punchable. When the Revolution comes, while the Lawyers (and politicians) are lined up against the Wall, Paul Ryan will be set aside from the others, with a line of angry women waiting for their turn to either punch him in the face or kick him in the jumblies. A Fiver slipped to the guards gives a lady both options on her turn.

clowncar on fire:a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to. Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines

I agree with the radical theologian Mary Daly who once poignantly wrote that forcing fertility on women is morally equivalent to forcing sterility on them. If you can make her do one, you can make her do the other. Seems better to me to focus on ways to keep abortion safer, legal and more and more rare at the same time. Years ago my wife needed a D&X to remove an anencephalic fetus that had no brain but was threatening to perforate her uterus but she had to instead be induced to deliver because of the "partial-birth abortion ban"--which has no exception for the health/life of the mother--and then had to have a D&C afterwards because the placenta wouldn't detach and she couldn't stop bleeding. Of all the things you shouldn't force a woman to ever do--forcing her to deliver a brainless baby when she doesn't have to or medically shouldn't has got to be farking up there somewhere.

quickdraw:MmmmBacon: Thank you, Ryan, for killing any chance you might have had of winning the Presidency in 2016. You have almost single-handedly given the Presidency to the Democrats until at least 2020, if not 2024, and for that I again thank you. Oh, and way to learn from the arse-kicking the GOP took in November 2012, Sir.

What a crazy bastard!

I really never understood the phrase "punchable face" until I saw Paul Ryan.

You don't even need a phrase. The Germans have a single word, "backpfeifengesicht." Which basically translates into "a face badly in need of a fist."

serpent_sky:How absolutely sick and demented do you have to be to not only think about how you can protect the "rights" of rapists, but to share that thought with other people?

I was trying to figure out what the hell these guys are thinking in that weird time leading up to the election when they just wouldn't let the topic die, and you could tell, just from the way they were talking about it that they knew that there are taboos on rape, such that they must preface what they say with that boilerplate "of course I think rape is a terrible, horrible thing" right before they state their beliefs. They had to say this not because it's what they believe, but because they know they'll catch hell if they don't.

And I think this is what it comes down to: I, like most everyone, have a basic moral code. I don't do things that will cause harm or danger or misery to other individuals. It's not a set of rules that I read somewhere, and I adhere to it because transgressions would feel wrong; would leave me with guilt. I don't adhere to it because I know that I'll be punished if I don't. Now the constant with all these men talking about rape is, of course, their religion. If you were to ask Akin, Mourdock and now Paul where their moral code comes from, they would invariably and without hesitation tell you "the Bible". Their moral code, unlike mine, is written down, and they can reference it for you. They believe not just that their personal moral codes, but the law of the land as well, are based on and should continue to be based on the Bible.

But the Bible doesn't really portray rape as that big a deal. The Old Testament has some rules about it, but they're not really set up to benefit the victim; the victim is treated more like property. If the woman isn't married, the rapist has to pay the victim's father and then marry the victim. If she is married, they both get the death penalty unless she can prove that she called for help.

So if your moral code, your concept of right and wrong starts and ends with the Bible, you probably rank rape somewhere between shoplifting and slapping a baby. And you're likely to put your foot in your mouth when asked about it, because, no matter how awesome you think the Bible is, those of us reading it with objectivity have known for a long time that it's actually a pretty bad basis for law if you're not a heterosexual male member of a brone-age tribal desert community.

I should hope that if you weren't a right-winger, you'd be intelligent enough to avoid even the possibility of being mistaken as defending this anathematic grandstanding -- which, so far, you have not avoided at all.

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

So what happens when there is a conflict between the constitutional attributes and privileges of the pregnant woman and the constitutional attributes and privileges of the fetus? Flip a coin and see who wins?

I bet $25 space dollars that a Republican will eventually say: "If there's anything 70's porno has shown me it's that women might say no, but they're into by the time the bass starts playing. " or something very similar in the 2013.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: That said, this bill is horrendous and should never be seriously considered by legislators in a civilized country.

Are you taking a swipe at my beloved USA?Look, just because we are the only industrialized country that doesn't have universal heath care;and just because certain religions want to force the public to perform the rites of their beliefs in public facilities and and on the public dime;and just because we have a large and vocal group of terrified troglodytes who threaten riot and revolution over any sensible limitation on, public accountability for, or regulation of privately held firearms;and just because corporations are treated as persons under the law with rights, but no concomitant responsibilities;and just because another large and vocal group want to teach theology as science, and believe in folk tales and magic over science;and just because a group values a fetus over living, breathing human beings - so much so that they would relegate women to the status of property of a fetus, a male partner, or even a rapist;and just because a loud and vocal group are calling for an end to all forms public assistance and legal protections for the poor, disabled, hungry, needy, old, mentally ill, vulnerable, and young;and just because these idiots play any role, let alone a significant one in shaping our public policy does not mean that ours isn't a civiliz...Oh.Wait.*hangs head in shame and mortification*

LeoffDaGrate:OK, so by your reasoning, because a woman carries the unborn child in her womb before birth, that gives her complete control, morally and legally, over the child. That is understandable.

Why then must a woman give up part of that control to a man after birth? Just because a man is capable of caring for the child (feeding, nurturing, teaching, etc.), the woman has already been established as primary care giver by the simple act of carrying the child to term. Why, then, does that change? Do you believe it should change? Isn't the woman always in charge?

well you see Data, the unborn human child is is actually a part of the mother. It is physically attached to her. Her own blood nourishes it. when a human child is born, this is no longer the case, and then the male half, the father, is able to help with the caring of the child as well.

LeoffDaGrate:Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. But ignoring the rape angle this asshat Ryan is making for a moment, there is the general argument from the other side that is basically this: If two people create something, then why shouldn't two people have a say in what happens to that something?

Guys can say all they want but only one person gets to decide and it has to be the woman.

Period.

/This is just another patently obvious (not to mention unconstitutional) attempt by the GOP to make the window on abortion so tiny nobody can make it through in case anyone hadn't figured that out yet.

clowncar on fire:Oh for the love of God, would someone please explain to me why this is pro-rapist and not pro biological father to be who may, in a very small percentage of the cases, happened to be a "father" as a result of having raped someone? This bill is about giving both parties a chance to have their say in an abortion.

1. If you honestly believe that the true reason for this bill is to give "Baby-daddies" parental rights, and that it's not just another attempt by the anti-woman lobby to limbo under that ever-pesky Constitution, then I have a bridge to sell you. A bridge that comes with its own fleet of alien space ships. And one of the space ships contains a tyrannosaurus with a saddle and a laser cannon. And the tyrannosaurus shiats pure cocaine on Friday nights.

2. Men should not be allowed to override women's reproductive choices regardless of anything, ever, but has this hypothetical "The man is not a deadbeat and he wants to raise his child, but the woman wants to abort" situation ever happened outside of domestic abuse situations and the over-active derpmaginations of Republicans?

/Of course, you're just deflecting because "Republicans good, Dems bad," even if the Republicans are morally indefensible.//Trust me, they are morally indefensible.

I've gotten a girl pregnant and she decided to abort on her own. I was very supportive of her decision, (smart move!) but I would never have pretended I had the same rights over her own body as me, just because I put my dick in her.

That's a pretty selfish way of thinking. It's HER body, not yours. If SHE doesn't want the damn thing in her, than that's HER choice, not yours. That's called morality.

clowncar on fire:Oddly enough- the bill is about the fathers to be (not just rapists) their day in court too. Mommy may be carrying, but on many occasions, daddy and mommy were in mutual agreement on how that baby got there. When this is the case, shouldn't daddy at least have some say. That's all this bill really is: a chance for daddy to get his say as well: not as a tool for rapists to harrass their victims. It's about the rights of both parties involved in the pregnancy.

But i will agree- should this law be used in any way to compel a woman to have a child she does not want to bring to full term- than yes: they can burn it now.

Reading comprehension- how's that work again.

Yes, nice try, but that's the only way these bills have ever been brought before court. Not for rapists necessarily; but to compel a woman to bring a child she does not want to term...and that's just about the only reason for having these asinine laws. Here's why:

Even under the current abortion laws (Roe/Casey) there is a fairly narrow window in which a woman can even have a legal and safe abortion, once she knows she's pregnant. Amazing early pregnancy tests aside, she can only legally get an abortion until the fetus is "viable", usually about 25 weeks in most states. Assuming she's like most of us and doesn't figure it out till the fourth or fifth week when she misses a period, that gives her 20 weeks (five months) to get an abortion.

That seems like a long time until you know the glacial pace of the US Superior Court System. If the woman goes to court tomorrow to notice the father she's going to get an abortion and he wants his day in court, the calendar will be set usually for one month from the date of filing. Assuming daddy shows up, now there is only four months....but let's say dad doesn't show up. If this law is to give him a due process right to be heard and the bill says he MUST be given a right, the court will reschedule for the next available date, which could be another month. Go on long enough, and suddenly it's a moot point--mom has to have the baby because she missed her window for the abortion.

Now, if the law is written so that if dad misses his first hearing, its a default ruling for mom, then maybe...but I've never seen the law written that way. It's always been that the father has an absolute right to block the abortion unless he waives it; which is why these laws are always overruled.

No. It's not his body that is required to go through approximately 40 weeks of physiological and neurological changes that requires at some point almost every aspect of day-to-day life to be adjusted to accommodate those changes and end that length of time with an event that carries with it a non-negligible risk of death.

Animatronik:FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party. That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.

How does a bill that allows states to ban abortions even in cases of rape amount to a "pro-rape" position???

There's nothing pro-rape about it.

You guys have lost all credibility by twisting and distorting ideas to smear the opposition. You can say the othr side does it, hope it makes you feel right with the world.

It becomes "pro-rape" as the way the bill is written, in that any biological father to be- even rapists-- would have a say in the termination of their child and the ability to block or stall the abortion of that child. The fact that it includes rapists makes it extra fun to parade as a bill specifically designed to give rapists a right to sue their victims.

I went to a Catholic funeral for a ~75 year old woman today (mother of a friend). We're dead center in the middle of Kansas here. There were at least 30 beard sporting/bonnet wearing Holderman Mennonite's there for farks sake (husband was a lapsed Mennonite but never converted to Catholic for his wife). Could not be a more conservative setting.

And yet the priest still found it necessary to drop a "Isn't it great she had a long and fruitful life because her parents didn't have her aborted?"...not once but TWICE! AT A farkING FUNERAL! For a woman who, finally, mercifully, was free of the cancer that had been destroying her body for the past 2-3 years!

I can't imagine what he's spewing "to the choir", so to speak, on a week-to-week basis. Gotta be honest, sort of opened my eyes a bit.

Somacandra:Peter von Nostrand: Hmmmm... considering the source of the analysis, I'll take a pass for now

Then here's the same story from an anti-abortionist website. You are now free to post derp without giving poor ol' Jezebel a clicky-click. You're welcome, candyass.

Jezebel is an abortion of a website written by half-literate tittering shiatheads but I have given it 5 clicks to uphold my promise to click 5 times each time a person announces a refusal to click somewhere. You're doing more harm than good by announcing it.

BravadoGT:quickdraw: BravadoGT: Here's the entire declaration from the offending act:

SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. It seems a "bit" of a stretch to read that, and then come to the conclusion that Paul Ryan's intent is to "make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody."

Well this is how Jezebel analyzed it.

"Which actually means that states would have the right to ban all abortions with no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Further, in those states, if a woman was raped and wanted to have an abortion in another state, her rapist could theoretically sue her to stop the abortion, and Drum suspects that he'd probably win. "

And I can see their reasoning. Under that law the father could prevent the abortion and sue for custody. Especially in states that already give rapists paternal rights.

Even accepting all of those assumptions as true--to categorize Ryan's intent as such is pretty specious

"Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to."

/if you give Oklahoma a free hand, I guarantee you'll get some screwed up laws.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. It seems a "bit" of a stretch to read that, and then come to the conclusion that Paul Ryan's intent is to "make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody."

mod3072:Paul Ryan can eat a huge bowl of dicks as far as I'm concerned, but this article is just retarded hysterics trying very hard to drum up some manufactured outrage. Jezebel can share Ryan's bowl of dicks if they don't have their own.

It's actually rather plausible that suing to prevent an abortion - by way of suing for custody while a woman is still pregnant - would be accepted by certain courts. What is unclear to me is how they expect paternity to be established in such a situation; in other words, how does the man establish a private right of action/standing to begin with? Of course paternity can be established prenatally, but it doesn't seem the bill would allow a man to make a woman undergo such a test. Maybe if he established in a preliminary proceeding that he had sex with the woman? Seems you'd need a jury to do that sort of fact finding. Nice use of resources, nice way of delaying a pregnancy to the point where it can't happen or is more dangerous for the mother.

There are so many things wrong with personhood bills. This is the most emotional example of what could happen, but anyone following a logical train of thought should understand that this type of bill would (in the short term) prevent women from getting necessary medical care and (in the long term) be declared unconstitutional.

I have really, really come to abhor the term "Pro Life". The people that describe themselves as such are predominantly not in favor of life; they're just against abortion.

In fact, they are so ridiculously, stubbornly, stupidly against abortion to the extent where they would much rather empower rapists through the legal system than allow a rape victim to have one. Think about that for a second: Republicans are aiming to give rapists more protection under the legal system than the rape victims. I mean, that is their ultimate goal - no abortions, no exceptions. Even if it means forcing an already traumatized rape victim to carry through a pregnancy that was the result of sexual molestation.

It's sick, deranged policy making and I hope that not just liberals, but Americans in general remember this shiat for the mid-terms and vote these motherfarkers out.

cryinoutloud:I'd like to hear your argument for giving custody of a newborn baby to someone other than the mother, if she's fit.

Too far.Because accepting, taking, and acting on the responsibility of being a parent isn't the sole domain of women.Because being irresponsible, immature, or selfish isn't the sole domain of men.Because having two active, caring, loving and involved parents is in the best interest of the child.

LeoffDaGrate:I'm looking for YOUR explanation as to why a man doesn't have rights pre-childbirth as opposed to post.

s2s2s2:cannotsuggestaname: what the fark is wrong with these people? I mean seriously, what is wrong?

Nothing. They are playing their role to a T. This is part of the plan to push you to the left, where you will be more accepting(as you already are) and even defensive of shiatty policy written by the "right", and pushed further forward by the "left".

So in your mind the GOP is trying to be as radical as they can to make the people vote for the Democrats? ??

That is the stupidest conspiracy theory I have ever heard. Stupider than burghers and troothers. Seriously.

Flaming Yawn:FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party. That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.

How many times do I have to keep repeating this.

The GOP is NOT pro-rape. Republicans are clear that rape is bad. Their point is that no matter how bad rape is, abortion is always worse.

Only rape rape is bad. Rape is fine, and overseas rape rape is fine. Moreover, they frequently oppose efforts to help slave trade victims and spousal abuse victims. They try to shut down clinics and flat out lie to support their side.

Preponderance of evidence says they don't care about women or rape, but are JUST barely intelligent enough to pay lip service to the idea that rape is bad to keep their jobs.

clowncar on fire:Smackledorfer: clowncar on fire: Confabulat: No man has any right to tell a woman to bear a child.

It's as simple as that.

DEAL WITH IT.

This hurts but... I agree with you 100%.

But, does that man- maybe not a rapist but a common law partner or husband-- have a right to at least have his side of the matter be heard? I am hoping this bill would not block a termination but could delay it long enough for all options to be layed out a "time out" period as it were?

I would think anyone who sought this course of action may be serious about being a father and could be accountable to the court for failing to do so should the woman change her mind?

Guy A doesn't like what guy B is going to do. Guy B is doing something legal and guy A has no legal right to stop him.

Should guy A have a day in court to be heard, even acknowledging that nothing he can say or do will allow the court to order guy B to stop his actions?

I would say no. You appear to be saying yes. Why?

It's called voting- we do it all the time.

but back to the guy thing...

If Guy B's actions- despite their legality-- somehow effected the quality of Guy A's life or had initially been the results of A and B's mutual partnership-- then yes, a day in court would be appropriate.Stuff like this happens all the time- Guy A likes to collect guns- Guy B feels threatened enough to want his day in court. Guy B likes strip clubs, Guy A petitions to close it down despite the legality.

In the case of partnering up to make a child, or the result of sex from two consenting adults (especially in a legally binding relationship where the intent was to produce a child), I would think that the voice of both partners should be at least heard. Should the woman be compelled to have that child- definitely not. But should the woman choose to subvert what may have been a mutual decision by both parties, there should be a forum in which both parties at least have their say- even if it means a temporary injunction on the abortion.

LeoffDaGrate:justtray: LeoffDaGrate: justtray: Why is this topic so hard for men to understand. You have no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. None. Zero. Not in ANY circumstance.

OK, playing devil's advocate for just a second, let me ask you this question:

Why not?

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. But ignoring the rape angle this asshat Ryan is making for a moment, there is the general argument from the other side that is basically this: If two people create something, then why shouldn't two people have a say in what happens to that something?

Again, I'm not defending the pro-lifers. I'm just tired of seeing pro-choicers come up with vague arguments other than "because it's WRONG!"

Are you serious...? I just explained it. Until the man is carrying the child, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. When/if the child is born, then they have a legal right. Not as strong a one as the woman, but we refer to it as "custody."

I really didn't think I made that unclear, but there you go.

OK, perhaps I didn't make myself clear then. I would like to hear your own moral and ethical argument against a man's rights concerning an unborn fetus. Forget about current legal aspects and opinions, I want to hear YOUR views that are simply saying "Men shouldn't have ANY right" when they have a hand in the creative process.

Do women do most of the work? Yes. Very few here are denying that. But to simply say a that a man has NO rights towards the future existence of another human being... it sounds a bit selfish and callous.

Pro choice here, and a man. I think that since pregnancy is up to chance and not something 100% under control of either party, choice should fall to the person who has to carry the child to birth, and has to pay medical expenses and her own time in carrying a child.

The guy hd sex and thats it, he can typically create another easily. Women have sex and then nine months of pain and inconvenience, followed by the agony of birth. The women are the ones who have to deal with it, and especially the consequences. It is their choice because it directly impacts their life.

Rich Cream:If you hypocritical libs really cared about the children forced into this world then you would allow the option of that child having the parent that legally proves to be the better provider.

A rapist will never prove to be a better provider. Because he's a FARKING RAPIST.

LeoffDaGrate:I don't have a response because, so far, I don't see you having a valid argument other than stamping your foot and yelling that men have no rights, period. ... And again, I'm not talking Roe v. Wade, or any established local, state or federal laws.

LeoffDaGrate:justtray: Until the man is carrying the child, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. When/if the child is born, then they have a legal right. Not as strong a one as the woman, but we refer to it as "custody."

OK, perhaps I didn't make myself clear then. I would like to hear your own moral and ethical argument against a man's rights concerning an unborn fetus. Forget about current legal aspects and opinions, I want to hear YOUR views that are simply saying "Men shouldn't have ANY right" when they have a hand in the creative process.

Do women do most of the work? Yes. Very few here are denying that. But to simply say a that a man has NO rights towards the future existence of another human being... it sounds a bit selfish and callous.

I just explained it to you twice. I don't know how I could be anymore clear.

No, you really didn't explain it to me at all, let alone twice. You're simply saying "A man has no rights until the fetus/child/whatever" is born." That is not an explanation. That is an opinion without any reason.

I'm asking your moral reasoning: what is the difference between a man's rights towards a child pre and post childbirth.

Stop trolling just because you have no response.

I'm not trolling. I don't have a response because, so far, I don't see you having a valid argument other than stamping your foot and yelling that men have no rights, period. I'm genuinely interested in your response and rationale.

And again, I'm not talking Roe v. Wade, or any established local, state or federal laws. I'm looking for YOUR explanation as to why a man doesn't have rights pre-childbirth as opposed to post.

Fluorescent Testicle:LeoffDaGrate: Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. But ignoring the rape angle this asshat Ryan is making for a moment, there is the general argument from the other side that is basically this: If two people create something, then why shouldn't two people have a say in what happens to that something?

Because only one of those two people is forced to gestate it for nine months (and probably raise it for eighteen years), which has been said about a dozen times in this thread already. It's sexual slavery, and it's designed to be sexual slavery.

starsrift: That's not exactly true. Men have the right to be the father. And they don't even have to be in the hospital or consent to being named one, at the birth!

[03.wir.skyrock.net image 301x301]

Problem solved.

Yeah, I don't get why these people are being so obtuse. It's really not a difficult concept. It should be common sense. It's like some guys just can't bear the idea that they don't have absolute control over everything.

LeoffDaGrate:Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. But ignoring the rape angle this asshat Ryan is making for a moment, there is the general argument from the other side that is basically this: If two people create something, then why shouldn't two people have a say in what happens to that something?

Because only one of those two people is forced to gestate it for nine months (and probably raise it for eighteen years), which has been said about a dozen times in this thread already. It's sexual slavery, and it's designed to be sexual slavery.

starsrift:That's not exactly true. Men have the right to be the father. And they don't even have to be in the hospital or consent to being named one, at the birth!

LeoffDaGrate:justtray: Why is this topic so hard for men to understand. You have no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. None. Zero. Not in ANY circumstance.

OK, playing devil's advocate for just a second, let me ask you this question:

Why not?

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. But ignoring the rape angle this asshat Ryan is making for a moment, there is the general argument from the other side that is basically this: If two people create something, then why shouldn't two people have a say in what happens to that something?

Again, I'm not defending the pro-lifers. I'm just tired of seeing pro-choicers come up with vague arguments other than "because it's WRONG!"

Are you serious...? I just explained it. Until the man is carrying the child, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to the child in the woman's womb. When/if the child is born, then they have a legal right. Not as strong a one as the woman, but we refer to it as "custody."

Ryan's bill would also require that there is a criminal investigation every time a woman has a miscarriage.

The guy is a real dirtbag.

There have been bills introduced in both Georgia and Virginia State Legislatures that would require the reporting of miscarriages to local law enforcement and/or prove the miscarriage was `natural'. Those didn't pass. But, like Ryan & Company, they'll keep trying.

flux:no matter how awesome you think the Bible is, those of us reading it with objectivity have known for a long time that it's actually a pretty bad basis for law if you're not a heterosexual male member of a brone-age tribal desert community.

clowncar on fire:The bill, as written, would apply to all daddy-to-be's regardless of how they put that baby there. That does not make it a pro- anything other than granting a biological dad to be some say bill. I would not expect that the court would give much weight to a rapist seeking an injunction as much as a spouse or common law partner.

But if the only way you can distort the intent is by insisting that only rapists would be the only ones to benefit from this bill then rant on....

Amendment XIIISection 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

clowncar on fire:Confabulat: No man has any right to tell a woman to bear a child.

It's as simple as that.

DEAL WITH IT.

This hurts but... I agree with you 100%.

But, does that man- maybe not a rapist but a common law partner or husband-- have a right to at least have his side of the matter be heard? I am hoping this bill would not block a termination but could delay it long enough for all options to be layed out a "time out" period as it were?

I would think anyone who sought this course of action may be serious about being a father and could be accountable to the court for failing to do so should the woman change her mind?

My argument in this would be that any man and woman who are trying to make a family should be able to have this dialogue on their own. No government intervention should be required or necessary.

If it takes a court order for the man to be able to raise his points to the woman, this is all doomed anyway.

clowncar on fire:Confabulat: No man has any right to tell a woman to bear a child.

It's as simple as that.

DEAL WITH IT.

This hurts but... I agree with you 100%.

But, does that man- maybe not a rapist but a common law partner or husband-- have a right to at least have his side of the matter be heard? I am hoping this bill would not block a termination but could delay it long enough for all options to be layed out a "time out" period as it were?

I would think anyone who sought this course of action may be serious about being a father and could be accountable to the court for failing to do so should the woman change her mind?

Guy A doesn't like what guy B is going to do. Guy B is doing something legal and guy A has no legal right to stop him.

Should guy A have a day in court to be heard, even acknowledging that nothing he can say or do will allow the court to order guy B to stop his actions?

clowncar on fire:I will agree with you on the intrusiveness that the legal system has taken with women's health issues though. I'm hoping for a best case scenario where- if time permitting-- the biological father to be could at least offer options to an abortion but that would only be in situations where time permitted. I believe there may be circumstances where the woman may not be aware of all of her options or that by presenting these options in a legal environment, the father would be compelled legally to care for his child other than by just offering hollow promises. So yeah, I imagine only someone who is serious enough about wanting a father would seek this route, and in the eyes of the mother, may be offering a real alternative option to the mother other than lipservice.

That's just because you're a decent person who expects others to be decent people. There are, excluding the rape scenario, only four permutations for an unwanted or unintended pregnancy:Both parents agree they want the childBoth parents agree they do not want the childThe mother wants the child but the father does notThe father wants the child but the mother does not

Unfortunately, in every single sense of the word, the latter scenario is the most uncommon; and if or when it does become an issue, it's almost never in the context of abortion, but in the context of adoption--usually because daddy doesn't want mommy's new husband to legally adopt the kid. I understand what you are thinking of--that a woman who thinks she has no economic or social option but to abort her baby might change her mind if the father were to contest the abortion--but realistically speaking, any man who cared enough about her and the baby would ALREADY have made that commitment, he wouldn't have waited till he learned she was contemplating abortion and then gone to court to prevent her from doing so.

If the father and mother have enough of a relationship that he can say "Don't get an abortion, I'll take care of the kid," then there's no need for him to go to court to enforce it; and if she's such a biatch that she'd say "No, I'm getting one anyway because screw you," then chances are he'd never even know she was pregnant to begin with. So if the law is to require a biatch to notify her baby-daddy before she gets that abortion....then you run into the time issue I mentioned already.

Of course, the other issue is when a woman is pregnant by someone she is afraid to notify--an abusive boyfriend or jealous husband--and that raises another problem of whether her right (and the baby's!) right to safety trump his right to notice.

clowncar on fire:quickdraw: clowncar on fire: Oh for the love of God, would someone please explain to me why this is pro-rapist

clowncar on fire: Unfortunately, rapists occasionally impregnate their victims and are granted coverage under this law is well.

Looks like you did a great job of answering your own question. How efficient of you.

The bill, as written, would apply to all daddy-to-be's regardless of how they put that baby there. That does not make it a pro- anything other than granting a biological dad to be some say bill. I would not expect that the court would give much weight to a rapist seeking an injunction as much as a spouse or common law partner.

But if the only way you can distort the intent is by insisting that only rapists would be the only ones to benefit from this bill then rant on....

Biological dads should have zero say over the decision of the woman bearing the child.

That is just being decent. Do you think you owned her body when you got your moves on?

Take another (or a first) look at the part you left out of your response:

I like listening to Republicans talk. It makes it so much easier to laugh at anyone who claims to vote for those ignorant lunatics.

Now, combine that with the first.

Just die off already. Sane America doesn't want you. Grab your goddamn guns and go hide in the woods like you want.

"Just die off already" seems to indicate that he is talking to someone who is - according to actuary tables - near death. This means old people. I guess it could mean people with tertiary syphilis, but I'm going with old people.

These old people are the Republican he laughs at.

Why? Because they vote for ignorant lunatics.

Who are these ignorant lunatics, you ask? Why, Paul Ryan and others like him.

Ergo: Hurry up and die old people who vote for lunatics like Paul Ryan.

But, you read: YOU GO TO HELL PAUL RYAN! YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!!1!

It really seems that the GOP had decided to absolutely wrong on everything.

Personally I think the only thing a rapist should get if they got their victim with child is a bill. No mercy should be given to them and the only role in that child's life they should ever have is to be a name on a check.

You have to wonder about a party that can't seem to get on the right side of the "rape issue". Or a party that even considers rape to BE an "issue". Or a party that wants to be associated with rape, PERIOD.

Conservatives are damaged human beings. Psychopaths, every one of them. At some point in the future, the Republican party will be thought of as a lunatic abberation. They'll be studied as an example of how to gain power by feeding on fear and ignorance and xenophobia. Just like the...wait for it...Nazis.

Fart_Machine:clowncar on fire: Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies

So it's best that someone mansplain things that they should serve as a forced incubator for nine months.

Not what I said- thoough that's probably how'd you you prefer to hear it. The alternative would be to accept the fact that some people are just too stupid not to be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (both partners), and that some people make hasty decisions without thinking things out. In the end, should a woman choose not to carry the child to full term for whatever reasons, then yes the law should respect that decision, but only after other options are explored.

If the bill allows for the biological father to sue to stop the abortion what do you think happens if he wins?

It will be a paper win only- a woman cannot and should never be be compelled to have a child if she chooses not to. Kind of a sick society if women were to become involuntary breeding machines, don't you think?

clowncar on fire:Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies

So it's best that someone mansplain things that they should serve as a forced incubator for nine months.

Not what I said- thoough that's probably how'd you you prefer to hear it. The alternative would be to accept the fact that some people are just too stupid not to be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (both partners), and that some people make hasty decisions without thinking things out. In the end, should a woman choose not to carry the child to full term for whatever reasons, then yes the law should respect that decision, but only after other options are explored.

If the bill allows for the biological father to sue to stop the abortion what do you think happens if he wins?

clowncar on fire:Fart_Machine: clowncar on fire: Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies

So it's best that someone mansplain things that they should serve as a forced incubator for nine months.

Not what I said- thoough that's probably how'd you you prefer to hear it. The alternative would be to accept the fact that some people are just too stupid not to be able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (both partners), and that some people make hasty decisions without thinking things out. In the end, should a woman choose not to carry the child to full term for whatever reasons, then yes the law should respect that decision, but only after other options are explored.

here i was thinking that was a masterful troll. leaving aside all the other insane derp you are spewing, you do realize that the longer the pregnancy goes on, the greater the risks and restrictions there are in a woman obtaining one, right? Like, as in days/weeks count.

clowncar on fire:FloydA: Of all the controversial issues they could have picked to make central to their platform, I for one, am glad that the GOP decided to become the pro-rape party. That's a message that is sure to bring the people out to the polls in huge numbers.

Nice spin and you're all enjoying the ride I see.

The intent of the bill was to allow the biological father to be able to sue to prevent the abortion of his child, but yeah, I guess if a rapist would theoretically wanted to take on the financial responsibility for this child, the law would probably allow him to sue to prevent the abortion as well.

Yes, I totally agree and support the women's final decision on the matter but if the biological father (not usually a rapist) wanted the birth to come to full term and had the means and intent to care for the child, the bill would offer at least some recourse until a decision could be made. Contrary to popular belief, not all women are exactly the brightest stewards of their bodies (that's how some end up with unintended pregnancies in the first place), and this bill may offer enough time for cooler heads to prevail while other options to abortion are explored. The sad part of this bill is that as a biological father to be, rapists would be given the same rights as the intentional and accidental fathers would be given.

If you believe abortion is the only answer to an unwanted pregnancy- than yes, this bill is a load of horse relish.

You do realize the biological father can't carry that baby for 9 months. So what is your solution for compensating the mother who is being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? Who's going to pay those medical bills, time off of work, change in lifestyle for most of a year, etc etc?

I should hope that if you weren't a right-winger, you'd be intelligent enough to avoid even the possibility of being mistaken as defending this anathematic grandstanding -- which, so far, you have not avoided at all.

yeah, intelligent people don't criticize what they view as dubious arguments - even if they agree with the purpose of the argument - for fear that morons like James F. Campbell might mistake them for supporting the target of the criticism.

MmmmBacon:quickdraw: MmmmBacon: Thank you, Ryan, for killing any chance you might have had of winning the Presidency in 2016. You have almost single-handedly given the Presidency to the Democrats until at least 2020, if not 2024, and for that I again thank you. Oh, and way to learn from the arse-kicking the GOP took in November 2012, Sir.

What a crazy bastard!

I really never understood the phrase "punchable face" until I saw Paul Ryan.

His face is quite punchable. When the Revolution comes, while the Lawyers (and politicians) are lined up against the Wall, Paul Ryan will be set aside from the others, with a line of angry women waiting for their turn to either punch him in the face or kick him in the jumblies. A Fiver slipped to the guards gives a lady both options on her turn.

I've never punched a person in my life, and I'd probably break my hand the first time I did, but I'd be willing to give Paul Ryan the honor of being my first :)

I seriously do not understand the people who think he's good looking in any way. The only youngish Republican during the 2012 campaign who was creepier was Bap Romney.

quickdraw:BravadoGT: Here's the entire declaration from the offending act:

SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. It seems a "bit" of a stretch to read that, and then come to the conclusion that Paul Ryan's intent is to "make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody."

Well this is how Jezebel analyzed it.

"Which actually means that states would have the right to ban all abortions with no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Further, in those states, if a woman was raped and wanted to have an abortion in another state, her rapist could theoretically sue her to stop the abortion, and Drum suspects that he'd probably win. "

And I can see their reasoning. Under that law the father could prevent the abortion and sue for custody. Especially in states that already give rapists paternal rights.

Oh, do go on. Please tell us which states have permitted "alleged" fathers (without test of paternity) to sue in order to prevent an abortion.

/bonus points for anyone who can explain how an individual could use the proposed statute in question to obtain an injunction when it doesn't explicitly create a private right of action.

mrshowrules:Peter von Nostrand: Hmmmm... considering the source of the analysis, I'll take a pass for now

They provide supporting links (HuffPo) and the Bill is a matter of public record (GovTrack website). What aspect of the story do you find suspicious?

From what is cited by Bravado I don't see it. However, I only have my GED in law and based on what others have written, I gathered it was analysis from TFAs linked web site. I didn't have time to read through the whole thing and half a dozen links

Somacandra:Peter von Nostrand: Hmmmm... considering the source of the analysis, I'll take a pass for now

Then here's the same story from an anti-abortionist website. You are now free to post derp without giving poor ol' Jezebel a clicky-click. You're welcome, candyass.

quickdraw:BravadoGT: Here's the entire declaration from the offending act:

SEC. 2. DECLARATION. In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States-- (1) the Congress declares that-- (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and (B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions. It seems a "bit" of a stretch to read that, and then come to the conclusion that Paul Ryan's intent is to "make sure rapists have the right to sue the raped mothers of their rape babies for custody."

Well this is how Jezebel analyzed it.

"Which actually means that states would have the right to ban all abortions with no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Further, in those states, if a woman was raped and wanted to have an abortion in another state, her rapist could theoretically sue her to stop the abortion, and Drum suspects that he'd probably win. "

And I can see their reasoning. Under that law the father could prevent the abortion and sue for custody. Especially in states that already give rapists paternal rights.

Even accepting all of those assumptions as true--to categorize Ryan's intent as such is pretty specious

MmmmBacon:quickdraw: MmmmBacon: Thank you, Ryan, for killing any chance you might have had of winning the Presidency in 2016. You have almost single-handedly given the Presidency to the Democrats until at least 2020, if not 2024, and for that I again thank you. Oh, and way to learn from the arse-kicking the GOP took in November 2012, Sir.

What a crazy bastard!

I really never understood the phrase "punchable face" until I saw Paul Ryan.

His face is quite punchable. When the Revolution comes, while the Lawyers (and politicians) are lined up against the Wall, Paul Ryan will be set aside from the others, with a line of angry women waiting for their turn to either punch him in the face or kick him in the jumblies. A Fiver slipped to the guards gives a lady both options on her turn.

I would definitely go for the face - if only to shut him up. Besides Im not sure he has jumblies.